UK Defence Forum

(Dominic Notley) 10 Dec 2018

Shaun Roster has released another set of QE photos:
https://www.shaunroster.com/MILITARY/HM ... omecoming/

Shaun Roster also shot this drone footage (sped up) of QE's arrival:


^ Notice how the Daily Fail calls Westlant 18 as EASTLANT 18

Some photos from Amy Savage (@AmzJS13) presumably taken from the rooftop of the Portsmouth Royal Navy Museum?

^ King's Steps Jetty (foreground) and South Railway Jetty with QHM's Semaphore Tower (background)


^ QE passing Victory Jetty, note the construction cranes.



^ Tugs winding QE to bows south near Princess Royal Jetty.


(Navy Lookout)

I watched her come in from aboard HMS Warrior in the Historic Dockyard for a change, was a different perspective that's for sure. My Son was stood in his Nbr1's port side for 5 hours to welcome her home, at last he is earning his pay!

What are the likely plans for the repainting near the bow ?

Dolphins with paint rollers in their mouths.

I'd like to see her fully repainted back in Rosyth, along with the fitting of new comms, Bedford Array, CIWS. Her hull must need a clean by now too, she'll have been in salt water for five years next July (17th).

What are you on ?

No doubt they will paint it as part of the planned upgrades. Maybe use a small barge alongside or a cherry picker from dockside. Does seem to be a problem with the paint as a similar thing on a larger scale happened whilst she was being outfitted up in Rosyth.

(Warship TV) 11 Dec 2018

HMS Queen Elizabeth R08 returns home to Portsmouth Naval Base on 10th December 2018 after conducting F-35B fighter jet trials off the US.

(Navy Lookout) 11 Dec 2018
QE's return, and families reunited on PRJ.

That Bow on view is the best view of QE Class in my humble opinion

1SL Admiral Philip Jones went aboard QE yesterday before entering Portsmouth.

I am still worried the Queen Elizabeth is too naked against hostile action. If you are only having Phalanx as the active means of defence fit four and ideally make two Sea RAM. Other nations and commentators cannot understand our way or thinking and how we think our most valuable surface units should not be able to look after themselves. It could be the ultimate case of a "False economy", down the road.

Look after themselves? What about that thing with Sea Viper?

Lord Jim wrote:I am still worried the Queen Elizabeth is too naked against hostile action. If you are only having Phalanx as the active means of defence fit four and ideally make two Sea RAM. Other nations and commentators cannot understand our way or thinking and how we think our most valuable surface units should not be able to look after themselves. It could be the ultimate case of a "False economy", down the road.

It's almost like they looked at the mistakes from the Falklands and said "no, we can fudge it up way better than that."

Lord Jim wrote:I am still worried the Queen Elizabeth is too naked against hostile action. If you are only having Phalanx as the active means of defence fit four and ideally make two Sea RAM. Other nations and commentators cannot understand our way or thinking and how we think our most valuable surface units should not be able to look after themselves. It could be the ultimate case of a "False economy", down the road.

I don't see it being a problem as long as two T45's are accompanying.

The major issue is not enough T45's. We really needed eight.

So why does every other navy with large carriers and effective escorts, still see the need to fit a far more comprehensive defensive suite on theirs, and these countries have been operating large carriers continuously for decades. Even when we had Ark Royal and Eagle, they were not fitted with the defensive weapons they were supposed to be in their case Sea Cat. We only installed Phalanx on the CVLs after we realised the error during the Falklands war, why wasn't it fitted during construction. The threat of sea skimming missiles was well known. The only reason I can think of is to save money, there being no military reason that justifies the omission. The T-45s are very capable and two will provide a reasonable level of protection, but historically the best way to protect vital assets is a layered defence and ours on the Queen Elizabeths is lacking. I hope the crews of these vessels do not become victims of this false economy at some point in the future.

Lord Jim wrote:So why does every other navy with large carriers and effective escorts, still see the need to fit a far more comprehensive defensive suite on theirs, and these countries have been operating large carriers continuously for decades. .

Because everybody else are stooopid. USN, France, Russia, China, Italy- all stoopid. Know nothing about naval warfare. Only the RN knows how to build and operate carriers.

Lord Jim wrote:I am still worried the Queen Elizabeth is too naked against hostile action. If you are only having Phalanx as the active means of defence fit four and ideally make two Sea RAM. Other nations and commentators cannot understand our way or thinking and how we think our most valuable surface units should not be able to look after themselves. It could be the ultimate case of a "False economy", down the road.

Yep, because when you spend 10+ billions USD for two new supercarriers, it's far too much to spend additional 150 millions for a 3-4 of RAM-s or a few dozen CAMMs.

No, we never learn, especially when implementing lessons learnt involves spending money. Relying on Escorts seems logical, unless something happens to your escort!

Lord Jim wrote:So why does every other navy with large carriers and effective escorts, still see the need to fit a far more comprehensive defensive suite on theirs, and these countries have been operating large carriers continuously for decades. Even when we had Ark Royal and Eagle, they were not fitted with the defensive weapons they were supposed to be in their case Sea Cat. We only installed Phalanx on the CVLs after we realised the error during the Falklands war, why wasn't it fitted during construction. The threat of sea skimming missiles was well known. The only reason I can think of is to save money, there being no military reason that justifies the omission. The T-45s are very capable and two will provide a reasonable level of protection, but historically the best way to protect vital assets is a layered defence and ours on the Queen Elizabeths is lacking.

I agree with a lot of your points but is it necessary for the CVF to be the final defensive layer before the Phalanx CIWS?

The QE's are not supposed to be globe trotting singletons. They will always be part of the CSG. This is the complete opposite of the Invincibles which often deployed as singletons. Why should the defensive bubble around the CSG be dependant on CAMM from the CVF's? By all means bolt as many CAMM and SeaRam onto the QE's as the budget allows but I think it's totally the wrong approach unless it's a last ditch insurance policy. Are we making excuses for a lack of escorts?

I would like to see the CSG made up of one QE, two T45's, two or three T23/T26's and a SSN. If an ASM makes it through that lot then probably a couple of dozen CAMM on the QE will make little difference.

Just my opinion.

2 x T42, 2 x xT26 would be ideal as a CSG etc

Another CIWS on QEC would be good aswell, 8 x CAMM on QEC would be preferable IMO just incase we only had 1 x T45 escorting her and went offline for some reason, very unlikely in a wartime footing but a small possibility although the QEC should be able to take a lot of battle damage before she was lost & hopefully that would give time for the crew to exit

I know the ARCS for the 3 x CIWS work but would another one be better for such a relatively small cost ?

serge750 wrote:I know the ARCS for the 3 x CIWS work but would another one be better for such a relatively small cost ?

A 4th Phalanx would be a very worthwhile upgrade in my view.

Perhaps we could set up a crowd funding page ...

serge750 wrote:Perhaps we could set up a crowd funding page ...

Does the MOD do embarrassment?